In a serious tone, Mr. Moore said he would like to see more preteens working.

“I’m a radical on this,” he said. “I’d get rid of a lot of these child labor laws. I want people starting to work at 11, 12.”

Great idea, Trumpkin! Especially nice for your buddies if you can get those young girls learning how to give more of those expert massages to Jeff Epstein and your boss. Once you’ve separated them from their families, they’ll appreciate the kindness.

And over and over, you claim that I have run from your arguments. Do you get that I did address your positions. That you evaluated my arguments as insufficient and then make your little private conclusion that you have won and that I am running. That is men tal anon.

Totally men tal. I addressed your positions. I get you don’t like my arguments. Move on.

You are totally men tal.

And you over and over and over again describe your arguments in these hyperbolic terms but never actually state your position but refer to one of your posts as if it is some ki ll er post. Men tal.

The last time i engaged anom on the merits, he just run and hid. I don’t know what men tal means but one must maybe have enough competence to appreciate one’s incompetence? or they never understand why they’re wrong and just keep going on and on. and on.

My dear friend, what possible topic would I run away from that you would bring? Why would I run away when you are so evidently challenged on basic principles that you often choose pseudonyms that the actual historical reference is in opposition to your beliefs?

The last time [I] engaged ano[n] on the merits, he just r[a]n and hid.

I suppose that anything is possible, but that does not sound like the anon that I know. I have known anon to repeat the same vacuous nonsense a dozen times over the in the face of witheringly conclusive refutation, but I have never known anon to shy from a fight.

Probably what you experienced was just a fluke of the admin filter. Anon probably wrote a ten-point reply to your posts, but none of the submissions were allowed to post. That happens on this board with distressing frequency. Some of my best work never makes it through the admin filter, and I am sure that the same happens to others, including anon.

Repeating the same vacuous nonsense a dozen times over (or supplying randomly generated word salad ad hominems) in the face of witheringly conclusive refutation is running and hiding. In fact, shying from a fight.

And then you follow me around and comment on my posts as if you are some al pha male in charge of all posts. Men tal.

Check your ego. Have you even done litigation? I bet not.

What you are is a dis grace to the pro patent movement. There are some arguments that are made by the anti-patent movement that are outrageous l ies and need to be treated as such. But you have moved all your opinions into the category of being absolutely right and you being the arbiter of what is right and wrong. Men tal.

Take a vacation and rethink. Stop dis gracing the pro patent movement.

Correct. Now that you have realized this fact, presumably the next step is clear. Walk away from the discussion. There is no satisfactory resolution that will emerge from continued engagement, no more than you might reasonably expect the surf to stop pounding against a cliff if you simply persist in shouting at it to cease.

Are there any patent maximalists out there who are sooooo “serious” about expanding the scope of patents and making them easier to enforce that they would vote Re pu k k k e, regardless of who the candidate is, with the hope that a more anti-democratic and more authoritarian regime would have more success in implementing the maximalist dream?

That’s a rhetorical question. Of course those people exist. They always have.

White s u prema cist reciting the same rightwing scripts recited by the “fine people” that the Rep u k k kes are in bed with:

“In case you haven’t noticed we are running out of time,” he wrote. “If this revolution doesn’t happen soon, we won’t have the numbers to win it. The goal is for the US government to start confiscating guns. People will defend their right to own a firearm—civil war has just started. Stop the slow boil of the frog—prevent the Jew from using incrementalism. Make the Jew play all of his cards to make it apparent to more people how their rights are being taken away right before their eyes.”

But, hey, Hillary gave a speech to some bankers so “both sides”. Bildo got on his high horse and filed a “protest vote” because the choice was so difficult.

The reality of white supremacy is brought to you by Yeti Publes (R) and his g00n squad (also R’s). I didn’t vote for this rotten timeline, Bildo. I railed against it, vociferously. And you didn’t. On the contrary, you chose to fret about “political correctness,” you toxic pile of worthless dogshirt.

If anything happens to align with his feelings, then that thing is OK. If something does not happen to align, then it goes into the “one bucket,” and all those who “feel” differently than Malcolm are in that one bucket.

Night Writer, please feel free to be the first to apply this to Malcolm’s non-patent law rants:

“I think there needs to be more balance in the arguments against MM.”

I am looking forward to learning this nice, polite, and effective means of focusing on substantive patent law and the various opinions of such (and remember, ignoring someone is NOT included as being polite).

Oh, make no mistake, I added those terms to your own rather bland “call” for some type of “more balance.”

Since your “call” came up only as a ruse to your wanting some salve for the wounds of your own doing in pushing your inane and uninformed opinion, feel free to add any terms you want – or to take up yet another invitation from me for you to do something more than seek to gratify your own ego.

anon >Night Writer, If you want a license to be vapid and post uninformed opinions in a Public forum, you have that license.

Seriously? So you are such a great interpreter of the Scotus that you can evaluate my arguments and determine that they are as you characterize above.

Absurd. Get an ego check. It is also ironic that you keep accusing me of unfairly attacking you and ad hominin attacks, but the core of the problem here is your ego. You feel you are so right that you have the right to follow me around and harass me over this issue.

And, yet, when we go one on one on predicting the Scotus I win. But someone how you have superior knowledge that just doesn’t pan out in making predictions.

You also seem to be continually confused about the difference between me writing descriptive statements of what I believe the Scotus is holding and thinking vs. what I think should be the holdings.

As YOU take yet another opportunity to do nothing but whine and NOT address the multi-prong counterpoints in any substantive manner, your protest proves the opposite of your assertion and that it is obvious just who holds themselves to a too high level of legal knowledge.

I have indicated the path for you to “back up” what you are saying: engage on the merits.

You want me to “check my ego” while you AGAIN pursue your own ego-gratification with posting on yet another thread all the while the ball remains in your court on the underlying substantive matter?

You can alleviate all of this by doing what I asked of you in the very first instance.

Instead of trying to elevate your opinion (as uninformed as it is) above having an informed opinion, you want to whine that I have called you out for not addressing counter points presented to you (and yes, “address” means more than merely dismissing those points based on nothing more than your own say-so — talk about “ego”…).

You have attempted all manner of response, including ad hominem, and most everything EXCEPT the simple and direct thing I have asked if you all along: engage on the merits.

Do you really think that here – on yet another thread – that I am “following you” when you post ONLY to whine and — yet again — fai1 to actually engage on the merits?

Your non-sequitur of “predicting” and confusing what “predicting” entails with descriptive/prescriptive very much misses the point of my replying to a new post of yours with your old baseline position when that position has had counterpoints presented to it that show your baseline position to be uninformed.

As I have stated: you are free to vapid and uninformed. You are not free to do so in a public forum with preventing anyone from calling you out for being vapid and uninformed.

This is not about — and has never been about — any type of “predicting.” Such is a non-sequitor. This being a non-sequitur has also been pointed out to you as a vapid reply. Again, you have all the power to be as vapid as you want to be. But such does not – and cannot – change the underlying basis of our exchange.

The ball remains in your court to engage on the substantive points put to your repeated legal position of “tying.”

Maybe one of these days you will actually stop whining and start engaging on the merits.

You are just going on and on about some imaginary response that I am not giving. I did respond to you. You just don’t like the response.

And the going “on and on” is clearly you as you are the one that won’t let this go. You respond to everyone of my posts with these delusions that your arguments are so superior to mine that you can ridicule for maintaining my position.

You are just offensive. You are acting like my position is so absurd that you can just ridicule me and every time I state my position you respond to it with insults.

And you continue with this imaginary post of yours as being so good that nothing could ever dent it. Check your ego. I responded to you. Your response to me was—frankly—at about the level of a first year associate.

anon, you go on endlessly about some imaginary argument of yours that I did not respond to. And remarkably you don’t even repeat it. Instead you describe the attributes of the argument rather than repeating the argument.

It is like an infomercial or one of those terrible documentaries about aliens. What else could it be?